Vinny's Book: Dead on Arrival?
RICLAND
it's the non-event of the year. Worse still, 75% of the people who read
it, say it sucks big time.
And then there's the quality of Vinny's writing. The man's disconnect is
scary. In his interviews he describes the book as the most scholarly
study of the JFK assassination to date, yet his writing is so rife with
ad hominem attacks as to make it all but unreadable.
Reviewers are shocked and appalled by this. They ask the same questions:
"Why does he call everyone 'kooks'"? "Why does he dismiss witness after
witness as unreliable?" "Why can't he stop boasting about how brilliant
he is?"
And then there's the quality of the research. It appears more than a
little of his research comes from lone nutter web sites, not the new
sources he promised. This means he's regurgitating arguments and
evidence that the conspiracy community has proved fraudulent years ago.
Finally, last week a key piece of the book's science was obliterated.
How Bugliosi is responding to this, we haven't heard yet, but that he
must respond to this immediately there can be little doubt.
New scientific standards argue the bullet fragments found in the JFK
limo are not consistent with bullets fired from Oswald's rifle. Here in
this newsgroup the only explanation for this lone nutter David Van Pein
has given is that "common sense says the fragments must have come from
Oswald's gun because we know it's the gun he used."
A laughable example of circular reasoning to be sure, but according to
reviewers, precisely the kind of infantile reasoning they encountered in
Vinny's book page after page.
ricland
--
Grassy Knoll News
http://www.riclanders.com/
Reclaiming History ...???
The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com
David Von Pein
Looks like Bud and I taught Vince well, huh? (It must have been some
kind of "telepathic" thing, since Vince doesn't own a computer.) ;)
>>> "It appears more than a little of his research comes from lone nutter web sites, not the new
sources he promised." <<<
VB has no home computer. Perhaps he accessed some LN sites at some
point in the last several years...I don't know (from his work offices
in L.A. perhaps; ~shrugs~). But Vince had the National Archives itself
to work from (plus some first-hand witness interviews). And his copies
of the WC volumes and other written materials.
BTW, when did Vince ever "promise new sources"? I don't recall such a
"promise".
Vince did say he'd have some "powerful new inferences" re. the case.
But that's not really a "source"...it's VB's own CS&L at work. And he
says there are such powerful inferences throughout the whole
book....and I don't doubt it for a second.
Naturally, the kooks will sweep such new inferences under their CT
rugs. But, nothing new there. It's to be expected among the hardline
CT-Kooks.
>>> "Last week a key piece of the book's science was obliterated. How Bugliosi is responding to this, we haven't heard yet..." <<<
It wasn't "obliterated" at all. Not even close to it. And VB has
already responded to it. I've posted his response on this forum, right
here.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3edc6fe33e950b8f
"This {new bullet study} is the silliness that's been going on in this
case for close to 44 years. All this new study is saying is that
Neutron Activation Analysis is not conclusive on the issue of whether
all the fragments came from the same batch. But that's not new...it's
already in my book. It's just someone trying to get in the news
again." (slightly paraphrased) -- Vincent Bugliosi
RICLAND
>>>> "Why does he call everyone 'kooks'?" <<<
>
> Looks like Bud and I taught Vince well, huh? (It must have been some
> kind of "telepathic" thing, since Vince doesn't own a computer.) ;)
It turns readers off, especially since 80-85% of these readers are by
his definition "kooks."
And you say Vinny doesn't have a home computer? Ha! I must be
telepathic! I've been saying this must be the case all along. I could
tell this by his interviews and writings. He comes across as an
uninformed, old-fashioned fool with no internet access.
I'll find the post where I said this and reprint it here.
>
>
>>>> "It appears more than a little of his research comes from lone nutter web sites, not the new
> sources he promised." <<<
>
> VB has no home computer. Perhaps he accessed some LN sites at some
> point in the last several years...I don't know (from his work offices
> in L.A. perhaps; ~shrugs~). But Vince had the National Archives itself
> to work from (plus some first-hand witness interviews). And his copies
> of the WC volumes and other written materials.
More than likely he paid people who simply got their data from the
internet; perhaps the McAdams site and since Vinny doesn't have internet
access he thought it was all new and improved when it's actually all
been debunked.
>
> BTW, when did Vince ever "promise new sources"? I don't recall such a
> "promise".
>
> Vince did say he'd have some "powerful new inferences" re. the case.
> But that's not really a "source"...it's VB's own CS&L at work. And he
> says there are such powerful inferences throughout the whole
> book....and I don't doubt it for a second.
The so-called "powerful new inferences" we've already heard about from
his book are nothing more than his "common sense" treatment of
unfavorable evidence -- "Even though the bullet fragments don't match,
common sense tells us they came from the rifle Oswald used because since
Oswald shot JFK, they would not have come from anywhere else."
Sorry, that's circular reasoning, not a "powerful new inference."
>
> Naturally, the kooks will sweep such new inferences under their CT
> rugs. But, nothing new there. It's to be expected among the hardline
> CT-Kooks.
If by "kooks" you mean 80-85% of the population, you're correct. And
lest we forget, Bugliosi predicts that his book will dramatically reduce
these figures. He predicts the number will drop well below 50%.
You agree with that?
>
>
>>>> "Last week a key piece of the book's science was obliterated. How Bugliosi is responding to this, we haven't heard yet..." <<<
>
> It wasn't "obliterated" at all. Not even close to it. And VB has
> already responded to it. I've posted his response on this forum, right
> here.....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3edc6fe33e950b8f
>
> "This {new bullet study} is the silliness that's been going on in this
> case for close to 44 years. All this new study is saying is that
> Neutron Activation Analysis is not conclusive on the issue of whether
> all the fragments came from the same batch. But that's not new...it's
> already in my book. It's just someone trying to get in the news
> again." (slightly paraphrased) -- Vincent Bugliosi
>
Since I don't have the book, I'll have to wait until I read Vinny's
referenced passage. For the record, though, I'm sure he says with
certainty the fragments "matched Oswald's gun." If he does, he not only
has it wrong, but also, his response directly above is yet more evidence
the man is a liar.
Bookmark this. It will be revisited.
aeffects
> >>> "Why does he call everyone 'kooks'?" <<<
>
> Looks like Bud and I taught Vince well, huh? (It must have been some
> kind of "telepathic" thing, since Vince doesn't own a computer.) ;)
what-a-fruitcake .... we KNOW you've had the manuscript for months,
who are you bullshitting, David, us? LMAO
> >>> "It appears more than a little of his research comes from lone nutter web sites, not the new
>
> sources he promised." <<<
>
> VB has no home computer. Perhaps he accessed some LN sites at some
> point in the last several years...I don't know (from his work offices
> in L.A. perhaps; ~shrugs~). But Vince had the National Archives itself
> to work from (plus some first-hand witness interviews). And his copies
> of the WC volumes and other written materials.
yep, uh-huh!
> BTW, when did Vince ever "promise new sources"? I don't recall such a
> "promise".
>
> Vince did say he'd have some "powerful new inferences" re. the case.
> But that's not really a "source"...it's VB's own CS&L at work. And he
> says there are such powerful inferences throughout the whole
> book....and I don't doubt it for a second.
of course you don't doubt -- most dyed-in-the-wool WCR defenders
(called STUMPS) can't doubt, doubt isn't scripted!
> Naturally, the kooks will sweep such new inferences under their CT
> rugs. But, nothing new there. It's to be expected among the hardline
> CT-Kooks.
new inferences end up right where they belong, the dungheap fluttering
amongst Bugliosi's latest offering
> >>> "Last week a key piece of the book's science was obliterated. How Bugliosi is responding to this, we haven't heard yet..." <<<
>
> It wasn't "obliterated" at all. Not even close to it. And VB has
> already responded to it. I've posted his response on this forum, right
> here.....
he and you will be pissing and moaning in another 30days.....
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3edc6fe33e950b8f
>
> "This {new bullet study} is the silliness that's been going on in this
> case for close to 44 years. All this new study is saying is that
> Neutron Activation Analysis is not conclusive on the issue of whether
> all the fragments came from the same batch. But that's not new...it's
> already in my book. It's just someone trying to get in the news
> again." (slightly paraphrased) -- Vincent Bugliosi
what does the 'slightly' in "slightly paraphrased" mean......?
David Von Pein
Just exactly what it says...slightly....as in "not by much". Why not
cue up the video and see?
David Von Pein
JLeyd...@aol.com
> It's not too early to say Mr. Bugliosi's book is dead-on-arrival, that
> it's the non-event of the year. Worse still, 75% of the people who read
> it, say it sucks big time.
Far from being DOA, the Bugliosi book was No. 64 on the Amazon.com
sales list as of noon 5/21. It's been steadily moving up in the
rankings. Not bad for a 1,600+page book that costs $30. The book has
received a number of one-star reviews on Amazon.com but it's obvious
most of the reviewers have never read the book. They are people like
you. Maybe they are you.
JGL
> Grassy Knoll Newshttp://www.riclanders.com/
tomnln
Do you want to be the one Responsible for Bugliosi being referred to as a
KOOK-SUCKER"?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179755409.9...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
lazu...@webtv.net
that are uninformed, but when they find out there's many more sides to
the story than Bug has foisted on us....they will be some unhappy
campers.
Walt
> On May 21, 8:41 am, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > It's not too early to say Mr. Bugliosi's book is dead-on-arrival, that
> > it's the non-event of the year. Worse still, 75% of the people who read
> > it, say it sucks big time.
>
> Far from being DOA, the Bugliosi book was No. 64 on the Amazon.com
> sales list as of noon 5/21.
Number 64..... Wow!! I suppose you think it's destined to be a best
seller, Huh?
Walt
> > The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -